Category Archives: Black and White

Anger and confusion are natural responses to stress, whether they come from having a bad day or being judged unfairly. The question for Serena Williams, world-renowned tennis star, is which one caused her to go ballistic when she lost the U.S. Open?

She claims the referee, Carlos Ramos, was sexist for calling her out for several offenses that ultimately cost her the game. These infractions include obtaining help from her coaches during the game, breaking her racket and verbally assaulting an official. All three of these offenses are faux-pas in the world of tennis. She claims that if she were a man and had done the same things, she would not have been penalized, and therefore, what he did was unfair. The question then becomes, should Mr. Ramos just have let her violations slide? The answer: no.

Tennis is unique in the sports world as it is one of, if not the only, sport where you cannot get help from coaches during a match. The sport as a whole is rather special, especially in terms of how “proper” everything has to be. Even though this can be a source of stress for athletes, it is what makes tennis so enjoyable for some. This need for order can also affect the coaches, as seen in Mr. Ramos, who is known to keep in line with the rules of tennis and administers justice accordingly. While he arguably should have given her a verbal warning first, she was breaking the rules regardless.

As a woman myself, I agree with him. This was not an act of sexism, especially as Mr. Ramos is known to consistently point out any rule-breaking regardless of the athlete’s gender. To say that male tennis players are never called out for the aforementioned infractions is factually incorrect. Even if it is uncommon, they are still frequently called out for their wrongdoings, such as when Benoit Paire was penalized for racket breaking in Aug. Ultimately, violating the rules is not admissible, and unfortunately for Ms. Williams, she simply was not in the clear.

Regardless of the validity and justification for his call, her reaction was unacceptable. Of course she was likely stressed after losing such an important match, but fussing at the referee rather than respectfully asking for why he called her out is just not good sportsmanship. Ms. Williams is very talented and has a large fan base, and thus carries great clout in the tennis community. However, that is exactly why seeing her so irate is upsetting. Most people expect more from their role models, and thus, hope for more from Ms. Williams.

Thankfully, there is always a chance for redemption, and I certainly hope that after reflecting on all of the events and backlash, she learns something and it helps to make her an even better example for young people across the globe.

RithikDoddla, Editor-in-Chief

Act of Sexism

On Sept. 8, Serena Williams lost to Naomi Osaka in the U.S. Open Women’s Championship, ending one of the most controversial tennis matches in recent history. Williams caused a great uproar on the court after she was penalized three times throughout the match. The first penalty was for being coached during the match, the second was for smashing her racket on the court and the third was for calling the referee a “thief.” Williams was penalized a whole game for these infractions.

After the match, Williams commented on how this was “an act of sexism” because male tennis players would not be penalized if they acted the way she did. Serena Williams’s actions are perfectly logical because she is taking a stand against sexism and fighting for all female tennis players.

Right after she was penalized for the first time, the atmosphere in the stadium shifted as the fans noticed Williams started to become extremely unhappy and frustrated. Though Williams’s coach, Patrick Mouratoglou, admitted he did advise her, he believed she was not aware he was and stated that it is a regular occurence. Even though this happens in every match, referees have never penalized a male tennis player for this.

Williams was left in disbelief because of this inequality and this led her to smash her racket on the court, her second penalty. Male tennis players break rackets very often during matches though they are never penalized for it. For example, Novak Djokovic is notorious for breaking rackets in frustration, but he has never faced any consequences for it. This took Williams over her tipping point.

She went ballistic on the referee saying that his calls are not fair at all and tried to seek justice. She demanded an apology and screamed at him about how this is an act of sexism, leading to her third penalty. She began to realize that there was nothing she could do to change the calls and decided to continue the game and express her opinions after.

Williams explained that she was frustrated not because she believed she did not commit penalties, but because those actions have no consequences in a men’s match. Williams is a social warrior and is using her popularity to speak about the unknown inequality that takes place in tennis. She is fighting for all women and will not give up until equality is achieved.

Partisanship and polarization have reached an all-time high in America, with The Washington Post reporting Pew’s findings that, “97 percent of Democrats are more liberal than the median Republican and 95 percent of Republicans are more conservative than the median Democrat.” Additionally, “more than 80 percent of Republicans and Democrats hold unfavorable views of the other party, with 44 percent of Democrats and 45 percent of Republicans holding very unfavorable views of their political opponents.”

It seems that the only agreement between the majority of Americans is, unfortunately, that their ideological and political opponents are awful. And with a mindset that anyone who disagrees with you is your enemy, political discourse is nearly impossible: the animosity between liberals and conservatives is, in my opinion, holding back both reasonable debate and the solution to the partisanship and polarization which plagues America.

What is the solution, then? Quite simply, it must be reaching out of the echo chamber and across the aisle, making friends with people who think differently than you. All of this must be within reason, of course, as I certainly don’t advise anyone to socialize with extremists who advocate for genocide and other such things. However, just talking to liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and many others may help you expand your understanding (and theirs), while putting a face to those people and views which you might otherwise deride.

Part One: Partisanship, Polarization and People

When Americans choose only to associate with people who share their own political views, live in electorally uncompetitive areas and consume media which offers no different opinions from their own, there can only be one result: this present state of partisanship and intense polarization. Put simply, both liberals and conservatives have grown apart in terms of the policies which they support and their ability to communicate their views successfully – in this case, viewing a conversation with someone of differing opinions as having gone positively instead of negatively.

There is a strong correlation between this intense dislike of views and parties opposite your own and living in an echo chamber. The failure to experience or even observe different views, whether in person or through media, can only confirm one’s own biases. “We know,” reports The Washington Post, “that people tend to self-sort by the sorts of media they consume and how they interact on social media.” Perhaps unsurprisingly, a Suffolk University poll found that more than 50 percent of Republicans trusted Fox News over more mainstream media sources such as CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and others. Furthermore, more than 75 percent of Democrats trusted the mainstream sources over Fox News. Large victory margins in state and federal elections point towards the conclusion that some Americans live in areas which have very few, if any, differently minded voters and therefore diverse opinions. In sixteen states during the 2016 presidential election, more than a third of voters lived in an area where either candidate won by over fifty percentage points. In some Midwestern and Appalachian states, more than half of all residents live in these areas.

A 2016 survey by Pew asked Republicans and Democrats to describe their experiences talking with members of the other party, with 50 percent of Republicans and 46 percent of Democrats saying that it was “stressful and frustrating,” and 48 percent of Republicans and 52 percent of Democrats responding that it was “interesting and informative.” While the results of the survey are quite close, the thin margin between the inability to talk and the ability to talk poses a serious problem. The negative emotions associated with talking to someone who thinks differently must be dealt with in order to counter the wave of partisanship. Furthermore, members of one party are more likely to describe members of the other party negatively – using terms such as “close-minded, immoral, lazy, dishonest, and unintelligent” – than those of their own party.

Part Two: Our Enemies and Ethics

The solution to the issue at hand sounds simple enough, that is, trying to talk with people who don’t necessarily think the same politically, perhaps befriending them, and working to counteract deeply-rooted divisions between liberals and conservatives in America. I recommend finding others with different beliefs from your own, and I would not suggest that you should disregard your current friends over smaller political differences. To be exact, don’t ruin the prospect of meeting new friends or spending time with old ones over issues such as tax cuts and raises, setting a minimum wage or federally-subsidized healthcare, but if a friend or someone you would want to befriend starts discussing beliefs in their racial supremacy, it would probably be wise to end the relationship. While listening to anyone who may challenge our dearly held beliefs is difficult, doing so is more than worth it to overcome the spiteful discourse which might otherwise happen. Furthermore, not all friendships need to be based on politics, though news of bills, policies and political gaffes seem to plague our everyday lives.

Some may say that talking to people with different views is difficult – or even impossible – because political opinions and views are rooted in one’s own morals and values, meaning that two people who disagree on one issue must disagree on the very fundamentals of life itself. The former statement I support, but the latter portion of the argument is not necessarily true. What people support in the realm of politics is naturally tied to their own beliefs; for example, one who supports extending good faith and compassion to those in need might support refugee resettlement programs and foreign aid, while someone who thinks that people are responsible for their own success might support less spending on welfare programs but might be in favor of commiting more money to public and private education. Using this example again, both hypothetical people want others to succeed and think they should, at the very least, receive some level of help from a government body. The end – helping others to succeed – can be met with different means based on the different values of the two individuals. If political disagreements were truly tied to the chasm between two people’s morality, then they surely wouldn’t have the same ends in mind.

The idea that different people may have different solutions to the same issue which effectively meet the same ends is what allows for political discourse, for if there were to be no contrasting views which led to no various solutions, debates and dialogues could never be meaningful, let alone exist. Staying on your side of the aisle can only last so long before nothing gets accomplished and everyone involved leaves frustrated. Not to mention that the inability to listen to others’ views and tactfully respond to them is quite immature, and the last thing that modern political discourse needs is immaturity. If someone shuffles out into the aisle, whether willingly or cautiously, whether with a hand out or hands stuffed into their pockets, someone must start a dialogue. I’m not asking you to take everything someone might say seriously, or even that you should silence your own opinions to listen to others, but rather just leave the chance of meeting someone with new and different ideas to your own open. If we ever hope to reduce the tide of polarization and partisanship that plagues this nation, someone must start talking.

For any student looking at an out-of-state college or university, finding scholarships is a necessity. I’ve become quite familiar with common market, and several scholarship websites. But why are the scholarship opportunities vanishing out of thin air? Such schools like Berry College, Georgia Tech, and numerous Ivy League schools devote too much of their scholarship funds to their athletic programs.. Most NCAA schools give their athletic programs only a limited amount of scholarship money. Due to the minimal amount of money given, coaches will dole out their scholarships and then move on to luring in more athletes with unjustified scholarships.

As someone constantly on the hunt for scholarships, this becomes troubling. Scholarships are consistently being taken and given to students undeserving of them. Georgia Tech is one of the many schools on the lookout for more athletes. One sophomore admitted entry into the prestigious school on full academic scholarship despite the student’s unimpressive 3.0 GPA and lack of rigor in her high school course load. Dozens of students take on 10 to 12 A.P classes and dual enrollment courses in hopes of earning academic scholarships and gaining admission into the school. Meanwhile an athlete with only one year of diving experience is given a full ride to the school in hopes of amping up their athletics department. Is this fair?

Schools with less than impressive athletic programs are becoming more lenient on requirements for their athletes. Ivy League schools are recruiting students with a less stellar academic background, all to assist their sports programs. Unfair advantages much like these happen on a daily basis and are constantly impacting the college playing field.

KatieHeissenbuttel, Sports Editor

For any student planning on attending college, making a decision on which school can be very tough. The majority of people pick the school that would be the cheapest and leave the student with minimal or no debt, while still being a good fit for the student. Students attending a college with the help of an athletic scholarship have earned it; they put in the work that is required to be good enough to play at the collegiate level.

Once an athletic or academic scholarship is received, there are academic requirements students must meet in order to retain it. Athletes receive money to go to a school to play a sport, and the student has to balance classes, practices and games all while staying mentally and physically healthy. Out of the 7.8 million high school athletes only 480,000 move on to play in the NCAA, and not all of those athletes are on scholarships. In the NCAA division I and division II, schools are given a limited amount of scholarship money that they can divide however they see fit. Not all college athletes receive the same amount of money, some earn a full ride and some only get a few thousand, that is for the coach to decide.

As for academic scholarships, they are given out to those who qualify either with their ACT or SAT scores, their GPA or with an essay. Athletes do not receive undeserving academic scholarships; all students who apply for a scholarship are considered and reviewed. Most schools don’t typically admit students who don’t meet their requirements just so they can play a sport because those students bring down the school’s averages. If you want something you have to go out and work for it. Scholarships aren’t going to be handed over on a silver platter.

In a society where drinking alcohol is not only considered the norm, but heavily encouraged, it is somewhat odd to realize that this same society still shuns a form of drug use that is arguably less harmful to the body than drinking. Throughout time, marijuana use has been extremely criminalized and discouraged in the United States. On top of this, whereas drinking can be considered more sophisticated, socially speaking, smoking weed is usually seen as a lower form of drug use, associated with a certain type of person.

This mentality, however, is extremely hypocritical. The same people who drink regularly will sit and preach about how terrible marijuana is. When looking at the facts, however, this argument is completely unfounded. Unlike alcohol, marijuana cannot cause death; one cannot overdose on weed as on alcohol. According to Ruben Baler, a health scientist at the National Institute on Drug Abuse, “the impact of marijuana use is much subtler.” There is no known medical use for consumed alcohol, however, there is plenty of evidence that beneficial compounds can be found in the marijuana plant.

But even with all of these facts, the stigma remains. Only twenty-four states and the District of Columbia have legalized marijuana in some form. Over half the country still holds tight to their age-old arguments. What they don’t realize, however, is that if they’re going to keep marijuana illegal, then they should make alcohol illegal, too. It makes absolutely no sense to ban one drug and glorify another. Generally speaking, people unfortunately fear what they do not understand. And because marijuana and the use of it is so rejected and looked down upon, it is still, to a certain extent, seen as a foreign drug. Though it is becoming more and more common for people in the United States to use it both recreationally and for medical uses, the majority of people, especially the elderly, view marijuana as dangerous. Also, instead of educating themselves, they prefer to live in their ignorance and judge a drug they know absolutely nothing about.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion; the fact that the American society as a whole doesn’t accept marijuana is not a bad thing. It becomes problematic, however, when this same society pushes drinking with such force, throwing alcohol ads at you from every angle. In short, the hypocrisy of the American society’s opinion concerning drug use needs to end.

Fifty years ago, the world was blessed with some beautiful music. The Rolling Stones released “Aftermath”; The Beatles dropped “Revolver;” Bob Dylan put out “Blonde on Blonde,” and The Beach Boys (or was it just Brian Wilson?) gave us “Pet Sounds.” But out of all those great albums, “Revolver”reigns supreme. An album can be great for its music, its presentation or its legacy, but “Revolver” is an album that is nearly perfect in all three of those categories.

“Revolver”’s music is sublime. The songwriting is (as one would expect from Lennon, McCartney and Harrison) second to none. The album has Beatles standards: “Eleanor Rigby” and “Yellow Submarine.” But those are not the only standout tracks. “And Your Bird Can Sing,” “Taxman” and “Tomorrow Never Knows” are all fan favorites. The diverse instrumentation on tracks such as “Love You To” and “Tomorrow Never Knows” is used better than it had been on “Rubber Soul” but doesn’t overtake the album in abundance. The production is rugged when it needs to be, but at other times the tunes sound clean and pure. The heavy use of stereo sound, the fabulous production and the unparalleled songwriting make “Revolver”a truly intoxicating album.

In terms of presentation, “Revolver” receives high marks. Its album cover is probably the band’s second most famous cover – only “Sgt. Pepper’s” can claim a better piece of art. The mash-up collage of the band members and the large sketches of their faces create one of the most memorable covers of all time. Even at the time of its release, the great artwork was recognized – it won the Grammy for Best Album Cover. “Revolver” looks just as good as it sounds.

Perhaps the greatest single element about “Revolver,” though, is the legacy it left behind. For The Beatles, this album signaled a stylistic turning point. No longer were The Beatles the twist-and-shout boy band of the past. They were more reclusive in a way, more independent. They made the music they wanted to make, not the music all the masses wanted to hear. Nonetheless, most people still loved their music. But now, it was more raw and experimental. They played new instruments and wrote grittier songs.

“Rubber Soul” was the end of the old Beatles. “Revolver” was the first of the new Beatles sound, the beginning of their psychedelic period. In fact, “Revolver” was one of the first psychedelic rock albums. It has inspired rockers ever since, and its style is imitated by bands from The Flaming Lips to Tame Impala. This album not only ushered in a new era for The Beatles, but it also it brought a whole new genre into the world of music. In every aspect of the album – the songs, the cover and the impact – “Revolver” goes above and beyond. It is the best album of 1966 and certainly one of the greatest albums of all time.

“Pet Sounds”

Joseph Shin

Editor-in-Chief

Fifty years ago, the greatest American band of all time (don’t argue with me) made the greatest album of all time. No, I’m not talking about the Byrds’ “Fifth Dimension,” all you hippies out there. Of course, I’m talking about the Beach Boys’ “Pet Sounds.” A miracle recorded on tape, “Pet Sounds” is the crowning achievement of the Beach Boys’ resident genius Brian Wilson as he created not just music but art.

“Pet Sounds” has everything: beautiful harmonies, unique instrumentation and touching lyrics which somehow all combine to be greater than the sum of their parts. From the opening beat of “Wouldn’t It Be Nice” to the dogs’ barks at the end of “Caroline, No,” the listener is taken on a journey through Brian Wilson’s mind that runs the gamut of human emotion. Who would have thought that a Beach Boys’ record could touch on such universal themes as love, loss, acceptance and pain?

The record produces a sense of intimacy that only increases on subsequent listens. Every time I listen to it, I fall in love with new sounds: the glorious harmonies in the third section of “Wouldn’t It Be Nice,” the bicycle bells on “You Still Believe In Me,” the woodwinds in the refrain of “God Only Knows,” the organ and guitar in the instrumental break of “Here Today.” Needless to say, the list could go on and on.

Great music communicates through sound what simple speech cannot. “Pet Sounds” showed the world that rock music was more than just a fad, that it was capable of reaching the same heights of the great musical traditions before it. It paved the way for musicians to come from the Beach Boys’ contemporaries like the Beatles to current acts like Weezer. Indeed, its influence is so vast because of its remarkable timelessness. No album will more fully evoke the human experience than “Pet Sounds.” Don’t believe me? Just take a listen.

Never since the days of J. Edgar Hoover has the FBI been so reviled. In the wake of the investigation of the San Bernardino terror attack, it has received backlash from tech companies and the public alike. And over what? Why, over one iPhone.

Apple is famed for its marketing prowess, and this case is no exception. However instead of selling iMacs and iPads, Apple is trying to sell their argument. First, they posit that creating the so-called “backdoor” for the FBI would compromise the security of not just one device, but devices everywhere. This is interesting given that Apple already has the capability to break into their products. This is not a creation issue; it is an implementation issue.

Of course, making equivocal statements and protecting their own interests does not by itself make Apple wrong. Its behavior is rational for the predicament it is in.What can you expect from a corporation that values profits over human rights violations and tax law? In fact, other tech companies like AT&T and Intel have chimed in with support for Apple (http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/03/03/t-latest-company-back-apples-stance-against-feds/81227900/), perhaps foreseeing the effect that this decision may have on their corporations.

The main thrust of the FBI’s case is that the public’s privacy comes at the risk of security. Should this trend continue, are we as the American people content with potential evidence never being submitted because of today’s highly sophisticated encryption technology? The issue, of course, is larger than this one case.

In the end, the best solution may not be to have a blanket policy, but rather to take this issue on a case-by-case basis. It may be easier to promote a “one-size-fits-all” policy, but the problem remains that there are certainly areas where the FBI forcing corporations is unwarranted or as legalese states “burdensome.” However, in cases like the San Bernardino shootings, it is clear that although privacy is comfortable, national security is all too necessary.

White: Will the “Land of the Free” Stay “Free” Any Longer?

SabrineAbdellaoui

Staff Reporter

One of the most basic ideals upon which the United States of America was built is now in jeopardy. The FBI, in possession of one of the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhones, wants Apple to bypass its security restrictions and allow the FBI access to the phone and the contents in it. The software for hacking iPhones, however, does not exist, and the creation of it would put all iPhone owners at risk. More than 94 million people in the United States alone own an iPhone, so this would be affecting hordes of people.

The American people take great pride in the freedom they enjoy in their country. If the FBI wins this court case, will that still be applicable? Can America still be “the land of the free” without its freedom? The FBI argues that it is simply trying to find out more information, that the contents on the phone could potentially give it leads to other terrorist plans, other people involved, etc. However, what it fails to acknowledge is the great danger this could put every iPhone owner in. The encryption on the iPhones keep the information safe, but without it, anyone could have access to it. The FBI claims it’s trying to keep Americans safe and stop the terrorists. It doesn’t realize, however, or is ignoring, that creating this software could be counterproductive, actually putting sensitive information in the hands of the terrorists.

In reaction to these arguments, the FBI has insisted time and time again that it is not interested in the halting of encryption altogether, that it doesn’t want everyone’s data to be accessible. All it is interested in is having access to this one phone. This is extremely naïve, for you cannot create software to hack into a singular phone. If you create it, it’s out there, and it applies to all devices. No matter what you do, it is impossible to single out the one phone, to hack only it.

There is no real way to stay true to the United States of America’s most basic principles and also grant the FBI’s wishes. They are contradictory, unable to exist simultaneously. If America wishes to change, wishes to “adapt,” to give up certain principles that it once held dear to pursue something that it deems more important, then Apple should indeed create the software and hack the San Bernardino shooter’s iPhone. However, if the US wishes to remain the “land of the free”, if it still values its freedom and the privacy of its citizens, then it should not matter what benefits may come from overstepping these boundaries. Up until now, for the most part, America has stayed true to its name. But the question remains: will it in the future?

When Ahmed Mohamed entered his school in Irving, Texas on Sept. 16, he expected praise for creating a homemade clock. Instead, he was met with punishment. With the dream of attending MIT and becoming an engineer, Ahmed said all he wanted was to “impress my teacher but when I showed it to her, she thought it was a threat to her.”

Ahmed brought the homemade alarm clock to school to show his teachers what he was capable of, but while he was in his English class, an alarm went off. The teacher then sent him out of class into a room with four police officers. One of whom immediately said, “Yup. That’s who I thought it was.”

Such a display of racial profiling exhibits the reason Alia Salem of the Council on American-Islamic Relations stated that “this wouldn’t even be a question if his name wasn’t Ahmed Mohamed.”

Ahmed was arrested and taken to a juvenile detention center. The school did not contact Ahmed’s parents until they received a call from the police stating their son was being charged with having a hoax bomb. They had denied Ahmed’s wishes to phone his parents because he was being put under arrest. Ahmed was interrogated without the knowledge of his parents and without the presence of an attorney. The legal charges were dropped, but Ahmed still faces three days of suspension.

In this situation, it is obvious that the school should respond to any possible threat with an investigation in order to ensure the safety of the students, but the measures that were taken against Ahmed Mohammed were excessive and unreasonable. For a child with such high aspirations, such a traumatic experience as the one Ahmed has endured is devastating. The fact that the school board suspended such an extraordinary student, possibly inhibiting his dream to attend such a prestigious school as MIT, is absurd.

Many have taken to social media to combat this injustice, using the #IStandWithAhmed. Among the many influential leaders who have reached out to him are Mark Zuckerberg, Hillary Clinton, President Barack Obama and many more. “Cool clock, Ahmed,” Obama tweeted. “We should inspire more kids like you to like science. It’s what makes America great.” If even the President agrees that Ahmed’s intentions were admirable, why does the school board refuse to accept that they were in the wrong? Ahmed did not deserve the punishment he received, nor did he deserve to be treated the way that he was. “Having the skill and ambition to build something cool should lead to applause, not arrest. The future belongs to people like Ahmed,” stated Mark Zuckerberg.

Black

HunterCornett

Staff Reporter

Terrorism in schools is starting to become more and more prevalent nationwide. Last week Ahmed Mohamed, an engineering student, was accused of bringing in a bomb-clock to school. Early in the morning, the teen brought the clock to his engineering teacher. Looking at the clock, the teacher told him “do not show this to anyone else.” In literature class, the clock’s alarm went off. The teacher was scared, so she took all protocols to their full extent, calling the police department.

During the investigation the authorities figured out that the “bomb” was a hoax and was not a threat at all. After taking stock on the situation, the authorities dropped all charges and let Ahmed go home to his worried family.

There are many factors that go in the protocol of threats to schools. In fact, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms reports that the success rate of bomb detonations for bombs in schools is slightly higher than that for the national rate of all bombings. The range of explosive substances and ways of detonating them are limited only by the bomber’s imagination and resourcefulness. Not knowing when the next attack would be, administration has a new outlook on bomb threats.

Ahmed’s school gave him 3 days of suspension because of the bomb incident. This punishment is nothing compared to the one Ahmed was being faced with by the police department. Ahmed has been put in a very awkward situation, and I do not blame him for feeling the way he does towards the school, but the school took all measures to ensure the safety of the students.